Because then the ANC government would have to re-market the theft of Afrikaner property.

My compliments on your answer Hugo, couldn't have put it any better myself. Ironicly the truth as well !

Im not to familiar with the history of S.Africa but wasnt all the land weather it was developed or not the local peoples? then the Dutch settled there and due to better technology, took control and developed? whats the history in nutshell?

Pretty complex. The Dutch arrived and set up a colony and started to grow fruits which were needed to prevent scurvy amongst the merchant men. The colony, Cape Town became a crucial stopping point between Europe and the East. The Dutch tried to barter with the local nomadic peoples - the Bushmen/Khoi to trade meat however the Khoi often stole back cattle after trading it and weren't too reliable. So the Dutch encouraged farmers to settle from the Netherlands and they did so quite successfully but whose activities came into conflict with the native nomadic tribes. At the time however, there were not negro people living in the cape, black people are actually not native to south africa. Later the British arrived and decided they wanted Cape Town so took it. They introduced their laws and the Afrikaners (who had since developed their own identity) weren't too happy about it. There were some who decided to stay put in the Cape colony and others who had a strong desire to be free. The latter packed their wagons and travelled north in what is called the Great Trek. They travelled in groups and they travelled long distances - reaching as far as Angola. All along the way, they set up small republics free of British rule. At the same time as the Afrikaners had been settling in the Cape, black Africans had migrated southward into South Africa removing the natives who were less sophisticated. In fact Afrikaners have been in South Africa longer than the Zulu have. The Zulus under Shaka created a well developed society and military institution and proceeded to destroy other black Africans such as the Xhosa. So much so that some smaller tribes asked the Trekkers to defend them. The Zulus and Trekkers fought with one another and came to agreements on territory which the Zulus reneged upon and the British later contested. After decisive victories over the Zulus, the Trekkers established two larger republics known as the the South African Republic and the Orange Free State which the British recognised. These trekkers became known as Boers (famers in Afrikaans) to distinguish them from Afrikaners who remained in the Cape. Later, diamonds and gold were found in the Boer republics and the British decided that it was a bad idea to have recognised their independence. The Brits declared war against the Boers believing that the farmers would be easy pushovers and were defeated. Decades later when the extent of the mineral wealth became too much for them, the Brits went to war again and three years later had subjugated the Boers. You're right when you say that the land belonged to the locals however they were pushed out of the Cape by Europeans and out of the rest of South Africa by large migrations of black Africans (Bantus)whose origins are in central Africa (ie Nigeria). Now there aren't many Khoi left and they are discriminated against. Nelson Mandela, it could be said, is no more a native to S.Africa than F.W. DeKlerk was although this is not particularly PC. Much of South Africa's best land is actually along its fertile Eastern Coast comprising the Natal (Zulu) and Transkei (Xhosa) areas. This is very much a nutshell and the history is actually very interesting and complex than this short version. One point to note however is that the Afrikaners do not consider themselves to be Dutch - in fact they are, in addition to being ethnically Dutch, also of Huegenot, German and Scottish origin and over the centuries had developed into a distinct group and consider themselves to be natives of Africa. Calling them Dutch today would be similar to calling the English Germans in their view.